inquiringmind Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Who was quetzalcoatl, and how does he (or He) fit in with BOM?
Zakuska Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 A good starting place:http://fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Relationship_to_Quetzalcoatl
cinepro Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 If you say it three times, you can invoke the spirit of Brant Gardner to answer your question.
Brant Gardner Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 If you say it three times, you can invoke the spirit of Brant Gardner to answer your question.I heard the triple invocation and I come!I do not believe that there is any connection between Quetzalcoatl and the Book of Mormon at all. The best explanation of my reasons is in my commentary, which isn't as easily accessible as online texts. There is a recording of a paper I gave on the topic at Sunstone (there were two, one in the 70's and a more recent - go with the more recent which is a condensation of what is in the commentary).
Zakuska Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I heard the triple invocation and I come!I do not believe that there is any connection between Quetzalcoatl and the Book of Mormon at all. The best explanation of my reasons is in my commentary, which isn't as easily accessible as online texts. There is a recording of a paper I gave on the topic at Sunstone (there were two, one in the 70's and a more recent - go with the more recent which is a condensation of what is in the commentary). Hey Brant,The fairwiki article seems to say that there could possibly by a connection as an echo from past generations. Do you see such a connection as possible?
inquiringmind Posted August 31, 2011 Author Posted August 31, 2011 I found this interesting.There is an additional intriguing element which indicates a possible relationship between the Book of Mormon and the "feathered serpent" Quetzalcoatl. When Nephi relates the story of Moses and the brazen serpent, he adds a detail that is not present in the Biblical account. In Nephi's account, he refers to 41 And he did straiten them in the wilderness with his rod; for they hardened their hearts, even as ye have; and the Lord straitened them because of their iniquity. He sent fiery flying serpents among them; and after they were bitten he prepared a way that they might be healed; and the labor which they had to perform was to look; and because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished. 1 Nephi 17:41 (emphasis added) Nephi refers to "fiery flying serpents." This brings the Book of Mormon account of this event more in line with the concept of Quetzalcoatl being a feathered serpent.[1] It is also interesting to note that Joseph Smith would not have gleaned this detail from a reading of the same story from the Bible.Could Joseph have known about the legend of Questzalcoatl and his connection to feathered serpants at the time he was translating the BOM?(I mean, was this common knowledge, available in any backwoods library in the late 1820's?)
Mortal Man Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 II do not believe that there is any connection between Quetzalcoatl and the Book of Mormon at all. I showed Ancient America Speaks many dozens of times to investigators on my mission. I wish apologetics were the same yesterday, today and forever.
ldsfaqs Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) While it is true "Quetzalcoatl" is not Christ, it is my view to throw away the connection simply because the actual guy is not the same guy is wrong.In other words, the Great White God (Christ) who appeared to the peoples and was to appear again, Quetzalcoatl took aspects of that story, as well as the story existed before, etc.I look at it the same as all the "Creation Story's" in most cultures that existed before and after the Bible version was apparently written.The Bible is the basic story, as it was from the beginning. Only different peoples and cultures took that story, and over the years it adapted, having elements of the original story and having elements unique to the culture in question. Then later the Bible version was revealed, which was the original story all along, that only other cultures and oral/written history had changed because of time and transmission.Quetzalcoatl is the same to me. While obviously the Quetzalcoatl story is not Christ, it's is true that elements of that story are elements of the Christ story. Thus, the Quetzalcoatl story is an "image" and likeness, an "evidence" of Christ actually having visited the America's.The Atheist will say the Bible story is false, simply because of similar Creation Story's existing prior to the Bible, and the Brant Gardner's of the world will say Quetzalcoatl has nothing to do with Christ visit to the America's. I say, those basic facts aren't the actual story. Quetzalcoatl is an adaptation, and took elements of the Christ story, this is evidence of Christ's visitation. Thus, to throw the baby out with the bath water by making Quetzalcoatl having "nothing at all" to do with Christ, is simply wrong, and too simplistic of a judgment as to how oral and written history works. Edited August 31, 2011 by ldsfaqs
ldsfaqs Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) I showed Ancient America Speaks many dozens of times to investigators on my mission. I wish apologetics were the same yesterday, today and forever.Not every apologist agrees with every single conclusion of every other apologist. This however is the only thing I disagree with as to Brant Gardner's works that I'm aware of.It's an "evidence".... Nothing wrong with presenting an evidence. That doesn't mean obviously they are the same person, only that many of the elements are the same, that there is some historical connection and bleed-through with the actual truth, the actual story of Christ in the America's."Ancient America Speaks" is a good production for a person to see patterns of truth in history to provide the reasonable possibility that Christ did in fact visit the America's. Thus, it's not bad or wrong at all. It is a good conversion tool. Note also the "overview".....The explorer Cortez used to his advantage being mistaken for the white and bearded god Quetzalcoatl, who according to the Aztec people had promised to return one day, similar to the teachings of Christ.Note the overview even indicates that the video wasn't teaching Quetzalcoatl "was" Christ, only that the story was similar to the Christ story and teachings. Edited August 31, 2011 by ldsfaqs
inquiringmind Posted August 31, 2011 Author Posted August 31, 2011 Since it already seems to be getting lost here, may I again ask:Could Joseph have known about the legend of Questzalcoatl and his connection to feathered serpants at the time he was translating the BOM?(i.e., was this common knowledge, available in any backwoods library in the late 1820's?)0
ldsfaqs Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) From what I remember, it wasn't until the last few years before his death "40's" or so that he "personally" from his own studies believed and started equating the BOM story to have primarily occurred in Central/South America. Thus, Quetzalcoatl would have come out to Joseph during that period.Earlier periods Joseph seemed to have primarily believed that BOM events took place in North America, or at minimum the entire continent. Edited August 31, 2011 by ldsfaqs
Brant Gardner Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Hey Brant,The fairwiki article seems to say that there could possibly by a connection as an echo from past generations. Do you see such a connection as possible?No. The actual native stories about Quetzalcoatl have very little in common with anything in Christ's life - or his appearance at Bountiful. The "echoes" are the result of creative editing and interpretation by the Spaniards.
Brant Gardner Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I showed Ancient America Speaks many dozens of times to investigators on my mission. I wish apologetics were the same yesterday, today and forever.I used to show that filmstrip as well. As for apologetics being the same, that would seem to require that no one learned anything and I can't see why that would be beneficial to anyone.
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I showed Ancient America Speaks many dozens of times to investigators on my mission. I wish apologetics were the same yesterday, today and forever.On one hand we get slammed for not being "scientific" and on the other we get slammed when we are.I guess we can't win for losing!
Brant Gardner Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Since it already seems to be getting lost here, may I again ask:Could Joseph have known about the legend of Questzalcoatl and his connection to feathered serpants at the time he was translating the BOM?(i.e., was this common knowledge, available in any backwoods library in the late 1820's?)It was available knowledge in some circles. Ethan Smith equated Quetzalcoatl and Moses, and gave a page or two account of the Christianized version of the tale.
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 No. The actual native stories about Quetzalcoatl have very little in common with anything in Christ's life - or his appearance at Bountiful. The "echoes" are the result of creative editing and interpretation by the Spaniards.One of the points Mark Wright made in his recent presentation in Long Beach was that it was the Spaniards who invented the "White God"- in fact in the traditional accounts the returning god is not white at all.That's just my recollection - did I get it close to right?
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Does anyone know the Cuna Indian (Panama) story of Ibiorgum? (not sure I spelled it correctly)Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) Or the Pueblo Indian story of Clemente? Edited August 31, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Brant Gardner Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 One of the points Mark Wright made in his recent presentation in Long Beach was that it was the Spaniards who invented the "White God"- in fact in the traditional accounts the returning god is not white at all.That's just my recollection - did I get it close to right?Close. The native tales associate Quetzalcoatl with the color white, which represents one of the four colors associated with the four world directions. He is "white" in the same way there is a "red" Tezcatlipoca. The Spaniards assumed that it was skin color, but there is nothing that suggests that it was (and Quetzalcoatl's idol was painted black).The Spanish took legitimate elements of the native story and understood them in their Christian framework - and wrote them down that way. Interestingly, it was only the pro-Indian writers who did this. The Christ-like Quetzalcoatl does not appear in anti-Indian writers.
Brant Gardner Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Does anyone know the Cuna Indian (Panama) story of Ibiorgum? (not sure I spelled it correctly)I have heard a short recounting of it. There are stories like that all over the New World, almost always in places where the Spanish were the conquerors. While every one deserves to be investigated separately, there are many for which there is insufficient data to really make the comparisons needed to verify or clarify the story. That is where Central Mexico was the best place to unravel Quetzalcoatl--more data exist.The commonalities in the story strongly suggest a common origin, and based on what I have seen in Central Mexico, I suspect that the common origin is Spanish and not native. The Spaniards found that a returning god theme worked well once, and tried it wherever they could. I don't doubt that there was always some native element that they adapted, but the adaptation always seems to have fallen into a formula.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Do the recent findings in Mirador (if I'm remembering the location correctly) impact that perspective at all? I am so not up to date, but I recall reading something about how elements in the Popul Vuh which had once been considered somewhat "contaminated" by later Christianizing interpretations were in some ways vindicated by newly discovered stone carvings. 1
Brant Gardner Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Do the recent findings in Mirador (if I'm remembering the location correctly) impact that perspective at all? I am so not up to date, but I recall reading something about how elements in the Popul Vuh which had once been considered somewhat "contaminated" by later Christianizing interpretations were in some ways vindicated by newly discovered stone carvings.I don't recall anything recently from Mirador, but perhaps San Bartolo, where there were murals depicting scenes that also have a description in the much later Popol Vuh. I haven't seen enough of them to be able to say how they relate to the apparently Christianized opening to the Popol Vuh. Since the San Bartolo evidence is in murals and the Popol Vuh in text, much of this will be interpretation in any case.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Ah, gotcha. It's always in the interpretation, ain't it?
LeSellers Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 On one hand we get slammed for not being "scientific" and on the other we get slammed when we are.I guess we can't win for losing!It's not the science, it's the slamming that's important.Lehi
Doug the Hutt Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) Who was quetzalcoatl, and how does he (or He) fit in with BOM?If you want to read of LDS apologists/scholars and their attempts to associate Quetzalcoatl read "New Evidences of Christ in Ancient America"http://www.amazon.co...a/dp/0929753011And I *think* ~Dewey Farnsworth~ made the case for Jesus=Quetzalcoatl in his "Americas Before Columbus"http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/B000ILQHVMAnd see this link:http://www.lightplan...archaelogy.htmlAnd this one:http://www.ancientam...MBOLISM.htm?n=0And this one:http://ancientameric...ELA%205.htm?n=0Edit -- And let's not leave out Jeff Lyndsay:http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme9.shtmlEdit -- and search LDS.org for 'quetzalcoatl' to see how the Church uses the feathered serpent to enhance the Mormon experience:http://lds.org/searc...ry=quetzalcoatl'nother edit cuz it's fun:http://maxwellinstit...12&num=1&id=330Edit....YBU's search results:http://maxwellinstit...coatl&search=GoEdit more:http://www.templestu...atl-and-xolotl/You may need this as well:http://www.walmart.c...-26-oz/17283321Edit..rummaging around YTube. This one just has a tag and the short interview doesn't mention Quetzalcoatl (but does mention BoM people=Maya), but it's Dr. Ainsworth's YT page so I'm sure he'll make the Jesus=Quetzalcoatl comparison in his video "Ancient America Unearthed": (again, tag for Quetzalcoatl)Edit...Similarly, Mr. Handy will give you a nice LDS-centered tour of the Mayan ruins (for a price of course). He makes the Itzamná=Jesus comparison -- not exactly the Jesus=Quetzalcoatl comparison. Notice his YT page also has Quetzalcoatl as a tag. Edit again...here's a, ahem, short vid by an LDS chap who makes the same Jesus=Quetzalcoatl stretch (begin @ 00:54) Edit again again.. here's another that makes the Jesus=Quetzalcoatl comparison (Italian):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpW4ADtAx44Based on the data in Yorgason's book I lived for a time believing Jesus=Quetzalcoatl, that the Maya were the Lamanites, that the Toltec were Nephites and that the Olmec were Jaredites. For awhile I thought it was just fine to be a Quetzalcoatl worshipper. Several people at church also thought Jesus was Quetzalcoat, and if there were differences it was because the wicked Lamanites went around carefully destroying as much evidence of Nephites & Christianity as possible...... I was going to go ahead and give you a review but I don't want to be accused of poisoning the well. I would only advise that if you decide to read it (or any of these things) compare and contrast what it claims against what the scientific world has found. Do they take things out of context? Do they do any quote-mining? How large is their harvest of cherries(cherry-picking expedition)? Do they take something specific, move it up a level to less-specific then remold it into a more specific form that makes their argument look better (horse --> quadropedic land mammal --> tapir)? Do they use spurious data or even known fraudulent data for support? Does the premise require you to employ circular reasoning(science looks at the natural world and tries to draw conclusions from the data; religion begins with the conclusion and seeks data to support the conclusion)? What have non-LDS professional archaeologists, linguists, biologists, etc. said regarding these 'evidences'? Assuming you believe in the New Testament Jesus, do the authors/researchers asserting that Jesus=Quetzalcoatl have indications of being wolves-dressed-like-sheep? What tools do you have to be a watchman for your family and friends so that they're not decieved?Have a nice day! Edited August 31, 2011 by Doug the Hutt
Recommended Posts